# Nazia @ Dr. Nazia Majid & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 243 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-08-08 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 12012 of 2024 - **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nazia-dr-nazia-majid-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52308 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal Procedure-1973-Section-200, The Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B/34- Trial Court after taking note of complaint and statements summoned Applicants to face trial for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 IPCStatement U/s 200 Cr.P.C is absolutely silent that Applicants-2, 3 and 4 have committed any offence of criminal conspiracy or they have acted in furtherance of their common intention and since they have been summoned only with the aid of Section 120B/34 IPC, therefore, summoning order is bad in law- entire documents filed before Trial Court, there is no such document which was forged and later on was used as genuine. The documents filed before school are not available on record, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 471 IPC- Section 468 IPC relates to forgery for the purpose of cheating and as referred above since no forgery has been pointed out on basis of any document, since even prima facie, no offences (referred above) are made out under Section 468 IPC also- No sufficient material to proceed, no offence is made out against Applicants (Para 7, 9, 11 & 12) Petition Allowed. (E-15) ## Text 8 All. Nazia @ Dr. Nazia Majid & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 243 (2024) 8 ILRA 243 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Application U/S 482. No. 12012 of 2024 Nazia @ Dr. Nazia Majid & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, Sri Hitesh Pachori Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal Procedure-1973-Section-200, The Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B/34- Trial Court after taking note of complaint and statements summoned Applicants to face trial for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 IPCStatement U/s 200 Cr.P.C is absolutely silent that Applicants-2, 3 and 4 have committed any offence of criminal conspiracy or they have acted in furtherance of their common intention and since they have been summoned only with the aid of Section 120B/34 IPC, therefore, summoning order is bad in law- entire documents filed before Trial Court, there is no such document which was forged and later on was used as genuine. The documents filed before school are not available on record, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 471 IPC- Section 468 IPC relates to forgery for the purpose of cheating and as referred above since no forgery has been pointed out on basis of any document, since even prima facie, no offences (referred above) are made out under Section 468 IPC also- No sufficient material to proceed, no offence is made out against Applicants (Para 7, 9, 11 & 12) Petition Allowed. (E-15) (Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The dispute between wife (Applicant-1) and husband (Opposite Party No. 2) has affected welfare of their child. Complainant, i.e., husband has filed a complaint that his wife has not only changed the name of their child (girl) in school records but also tempered with her date of birth and has not disclosed name of Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., father of child in school records. 3. Trial Court after taking note of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has summoned Applicant-1, i.e., wife of Opposite Party No. 2 alongwith three other persons to face trial for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 IPC. Relevant part of impugned order dated 21.11.2023 is reproduced hereinafter: "पररिादी्‌ के्‌ विदिान्‌ अचधिक्ता्‌ को्‌ सुना्‌ एिं्‌ पिािली्‌ का्‌ अिलोकन्‌ ककया।्‌ पररिादी्‌ दिारा्‌ अपने्‌ बयान्‌ धारा-200 दं०प्र०सं०्‌ में्‌ पररिाद्‌ में्‌ ककये्‌ र्ये्‌ कर्थनों्‌ का्‌ समर्थगन्‌ ककया्‌ है्‌ तर्था्‌ साक्ष्य्‌ धारा्‌ -्‌ 202 दं०प्र०सं०्‌ के्‌ अंतर्गत्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ साक्षी्‌ पी०िब्लू०-मो०्‌ इमरान्‌ एिं्‌ पी०्‌ िब्लू०्‌ 2 मो.्‌ 244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES फैसल्‌ ने्‌ पररिादी्‌ के्‌ कर्थनों्‌ का्‌ समर्थगन्‌ ककया्‌ है।्‌ पररिादी्‌ की्‌ ओर्‌ से्‌ पिािली्‌ पर्‌ दाखखल्‌ अभभलेखीय्‌ साक्ष्य्‌ के्‌ अिलोकन्‌ से्‌ प्रर्थम्‌ दृष्टया्‌ दभशगत्‌ होता्‌ है्‌ कक्‌ पररिादी्‌ की्‌ पुिी्‌ का्‌ नाम्‌ आयशा्‌ फैजान्‌ को्‌ बदल्‌ कर्‌ माइशा्‌ तर्था्‌ उसके्‌ मूल्‌ माता्‌ वपता्‌ ि्‌ भाई्‌ के्‌ स्र्थान्‌ पर्‌ विपक्षी्‌ अब्दुल्‌ माण्जद्‌ भसददकी्‌ ि्‌ मााँ्‌ शादराना्‌ ि्‌ रमीज्‌ माण्जद्‌ उफग्‌ जि्‌ रखकर्‌ दस्तािेज तैयार्‌ ककये्‌ र्ये्‌ हैं्‌ तर्था्‌ आधार्‌ कािग्‌ आदद्‌ मे्‌ भी्‌ पररिादी्‌ की्‌ पुिी्‌ का्‌ असली्‌ नाम्‌ ि्‌ पता्‌ बदलकर्‌ विपक्षीर्र््‌ ने्‌ षियन्ि्‌ के्‌ तहत्‌ स्ियं्‌ को्‌ लाभ्‌ पहुाँिाने्‌ ि्‌ पररिादी्‌ को्‌ अपनी्‌ पुिी्‌ के्‌ अचधकार्‌ से्‌ दूर्‌ करने्‌ ि्‌ उसे्‌ हानन्‌ पहुाँिाने्‌ ि्‌ कूटरचित्‌ फजी्‌ दस्तािेज्‌ तैयार्‌ कर्‌ असली्‌ के्‌ रूप्‌ में्‌ प्रयोर््‌ ककया्‌ र्या्‌ जाना्‌ प्रतीत्‌ होता्‌ है। पररिादी्‌ दिारा्‌ पररिादपि्‌ में्‌ ककये्‌ र्ये्‌ कर्थनों्‌ एिं्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ ककये्‌ र्ये्‌ साक्ष्यों्‌ के्‌ अिलोकन्‌ के्‌ पकिात्‌ मेरी्‌ राय्‌ में्‌ विपक्षीर्र््‌ नाण्जया्‌ माण्जद्‌ अब्दुल्‌ माण्जद्‌ भसददीकी, साददराना्‌ बेर्म, रमीज्‌ माण्जद्‌ उफग्‌ लि्‌ के्‌ दिारा्‌ अंतर्गत्‌ धारा्‌ 467,468,471,120्‌ बी/34्‌ भा०दं०्‌ सं०्‌ का्‌ अपराध्‌ प्रर्थम्‌ दृष्टया्‌ काररत्‌ ककया्‌ जाना्‌ प्रतीत्‌ होता्‌ है.्‌ शेष्‌ धाराओं्‌ के्‌ तहत्‌ विपक्षी्‌ को्‌ तलब्‌ ककये्‌ जाने्‌ हेतु्‌ कोई्‌ सुसंर्त्‌ अभभलेखीय्‌ साक्ष्य्‌ दाखखल्‌ नहीं्‌ ककया्‌ र्या्‌ है।्‌ ऐसी्‌ ण्स्र्थनत्‌ में्‌ अभभयुक्त्‌ को्‌ उपरोक्त्‌ धारा्‌ में्‌ तलब्‌ करने्‌ हेतु्‌ पयागपत्‌ साक्ष्य्‌ पिािली्‌ पर्‌ उपलब्ध्‌ हैं।्‌ तदनुसार्‌ विपक्षीर्र््‌ तलब्‌ ककये्‌ जाने्‌ योग्य्‌ है। आदेश अभभयुक्तर्र््‌ नाण्जया्‌ माण्जद, अब्दुल्‌ माण्जद्‌ भसददीकी, साददराना्‌ बेर्म, रमीज्‌ माण्जद्‌ उफग्‌ लि्‌ को्‌ अंतर्गत्‌ धारा्‌ 467,468,471,120 बी/34 भा०्‌ दं०्‌ सं०्‌ के्‌ अपराध्‌ में्‌ वििारर््‌ हेतु्‌ जररये्‌ समन्‌ तलब्‌ ककया्‌ जाता्‌ है।्‌ पररिादी्‌ िांनछत्‌ पैरिी्‌ अन्दर्‌ 07 ददिस्‌ दाखखल्‌ करें।्‌ पिािली्‌ िास्ते्‌ हाण्जरी्‌ ददनांक्‌ 20.12.2023 को्‌ पेश्‌ हो।" 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that since there was a dispute between husband and wife, name of child was changed in the documents firstly as ?Maisha Faizan? and thereafter as ?Aisha Naaz? though she was earlier known as ?Aisha Faizan? and her Aadhar Card and Passport were also issued in the name of ?Aisha Faizan?. Learned counsel further submits that aforesaid act would not constitute above referred offences. There is absolutely no evidence or statement that other co-accused have hatched a conspiracy or acted in furtherance of their common intention and learned counsel placed certain documents in support of his submissions. 5. Aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 that name of his daughter was changed without his consent. Documents placed at the time of admission in school were forged and correct documents, i.e., Aadhar Card and Passport were not placed. Name of Opposite Party No. 2 was also not 8 All. Nazia @ Dr. Nazia Majid & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 245 disclosed in school only with an intention that he may not have any contact with his child and even he was not allowed to enter into school to place correct documents. 6. In order to appreciate rival submissions, I have carefully perused the statement of Opposite Party No. 2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter: "बयान्‌ अंतर्गत्‌ धारा-200्‌ द०प्र०सं० ददनांक:्‌ 18/07/2023 नाम:्‌ फैजान्‌ पुि्‌ मोहम्मद्‌ इकबाल, उम्र्‌ 35्‌ िषग, ननिासी्‌ लोहामंिी, र्थाना्‌ लोहामंिी, व्यिसाय्‌ फैत्रिकेशन। सशपर्थ्‌ बयान्‌ करता्‌ हूाँ्‌ कक्‌ मेरी्‌ शादी्‌ नाण्जया्‌ से्‌ ददनांक्‌ 15.01.2016 को्‌ हुई्‌ र्थी।्‌ ददनांक्‌ 28.10.2019 से्‌ अलर््‌ रही्‌ है।्‌ नाण्जया्‌ ने्‌ मेरी्‌ खखलाफ्‌ एक्‌ मुदकाम्‌ दहेज्‌ का्‌ ककया्‌ हुआ्‌ है।्‌ नाण्जया्‌ का्‌ अफेयर्‌ ही्‌ एक्‌ मोदहत्‌ िौधरी्‌ से्‌ उसी्‌ के्‌ सार्थ्‌ ददमली्‌ रह्‌ रही्‌ है।्‌ मेरी्‌ एक्‌ बेटी्‌ है्‌ बेटी्‌ नाना्‌ नानी्‌ के्‌ पास्‌ रहती्‌ है।्‌ मेरी्‌ बेटी्‌ का्‌ एिभमशन्‌ फ्यूिर्‌ ककंि्‌ स्कूल्‌ सैक्टर-3 में्‌ करया।्‌ स्कूल्‌ में्‌ र्या्‌ तो्‌ पता्‌ िला्‌ कक्‌ आयशा्‌ फेजान्‌ नाम्‌ की्‌ लडकी्‌ नहीं्‌ पढ़ती्‌ है।्‌ वपता्‌ के्‌ नाम्‌ पर्‌ अब्दुल्‌ माण्जद्‌ रखा्‌ र्या्‌ र्था।्‌ बेटी्‌ का्‌ मायशा्‌ नाम्‌ कर्‌ ददया।्‌ उसकी्‌ उम्र्‌ 6.5 िषग्‌ है।्‌ वपता्‌ का्‌ नाम्‌ भी्‌ बदल्‌ ददया।्‌ माता्‌ का्‌ नाम्‌ भी्‌ बदल्‌ ददया।्‌ उसके्‌ भाई्‌ के्‌ नाम्‌ भी्‌ बदल्‌ ददया।्‌ िह्‌ मेरे्‌ सार्थ्‌ रहना्‌ नहीं्‌ िाहती्‌ है।्‌ मुझे्‌ मेरी्‌ बेटी्‌ से्‌ भमलने्‌ नहीं्‌ देते्‌ है।्‌ मेरे्‌ पास्‌ कई्‌ साक्ष्य्‌ मौजूद्‌ है।्‌ मैं्‌ यही्‌ िाहता्‌ हूाँ्‌ कक्‌ उसके्‌ विरूदध्‌ कानूनी्‌ कायगिाही्‌ की्‌ जाये।" 7. Aforesaid statement is absolutely silent that Applicants-2, 3 and 4 have committed any offence of criminal conspiracy or they have acted in furtherance of their common intention and since they have been summoned only with the aid of Section 120B/34 IPC, therefore, summoning order is bad in law qua to Applicants-2, 3 and 4. 8. Now the Court proceed to consider, whether offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC are made out against Applicant-1 or not. These Sections are reproduced hereinafter: "467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.?Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.?Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose 246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.?Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record." 9. Section 471 IPC describes a crime if a forged document is used as a genuine. However, in entire documents filed by Opposite Party No. 2 before Trial Court, there is no such document which was forged and later on was used as genuine. The documents filed before school are not available on record, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 471 IPC. 10. Section 467 IPC describes a crime if a document is forged and as referred above, there is no document on record which was forged. It is not on record, whether Aadhar Card or Passport were forged or not. Even particulars of Aadhar Card can be changed since a procedure has been prescribed under Aadhar Act. 11. So far as Section 468 IPC is concerned, it relates to forgery for the purpose of cheating and as referred above since no forgery has been pointed out on basis of any document, since even prima facie, no offences (referred above) are made out under Section 468 IPC also. 12. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient material to proceed, therefore, no offence is made out against Applicant-1 also. 13. In the result, application is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 21.11.2023 and non-bailable warrant dated 26.02.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 201/2023 (Mohd. Faizan vs. Nazia Majid and others), under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 IPC, Police Station Sikandrra, District Agra, are hereby quashed. 14. However, this order will not come in the way, if Opposite Party No. 2 places record before school authorities to include his name as father of child, as till date no divorce has been taken place. Otherwise also, name of father will remain in record till it has been disowned in a legal way. It is also observed that in case Opposite Party No. 2 approaches the school to meet with Principal, for this purpose he will be allowed and school records may be corrected and for that Applicant-1 will also cooperate since it would be beneficial for welfare of child. 15. A copy of this order be sent to Principal, Kinder Academy, M-49A, Ground Floor, Near Mother Dairy, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. 16. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. ---------- (2024) 8 ILRA 246 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. Special Appeal No. 135 of 2024 State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents/Appellants Versus Amar Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners/Opposite Parties